Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Joan T. MacKENZIE, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BISON ELEVATOR, INC., et al., Defendants. Edward C. Cosgrove, Esq., Appellant.
After plaintiff discharged appellant as her attorney in this personal injury action, appellant moved for a determination of his common-law retaining lien regarding his fees and disbursements and sought payment of those fees and disbursements. Supreme Court determined that plaintiff's obligation to appellant was in the amount of $36,923.75, and the order on the motion states that the obligation “is reduced to Judgment and secured initially, by [plaintiff's] interest in the litigation.” Before the litigation was resolved, appellant filed a statement for judgment and informed plaintiff's new attorney of his intent to commence collection proceedings on that judgment. Plaintiff moved, inter alia, to vacate the statement for judgment and to stay further proceedings on plaintiff's fee obligation to appellant's firm. By its order on appeal herein, the court clarified that its prior order prohibited appellant from collecting on his judgment until the litigation was resolved, and denied plaintiff's motion. Appellant did not appeal from the first order, and his time to take an appeal therefrom has passed (see CPLR 5513[a] ). Inasmuch as the second order insofar as appealed from merely clarified the first order, the second order is not appealable and the appeal must be dismissed (see Matter of Kolasz v. Levitt, 63 A.D.2d 777, 779, 404 N.Y.S.2d 914).
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 14, 2004
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)